Best pre-gun gunpowder war tactics?

The problem with waging war in the pre-gunpowder eras is that you don't really have any real effective support units to speak off. There are arrow men and catapults, but their limited range makes them less effective (and in harsh terrain like jungles/woods they are almost useless) compared to later era artillery and ranged units. This means taking cities in the pre-gunpowder eras can be, to put it lightly.....challenging.

...and that's being said assuming the city is on flat terrain. Taking cities located behind rivers or in spaces where you can only take from a few directions is almost impossible even with siege units.

So, what do you think is the best strategy against cities in the pre-gundpowder era? Is it just swarming the cities with massive numbers of melee units? Or is some other more advanced strategy better?

In single player at least, Archer -> Composite Bow -> Crossbow is considered the backbone of an invading force (pre-artillery and pre-flight).

Upgraded archers are cheaper than catapults, they can move-shoot, and they don't take damage when attacking a city hex (or another unit) like a melee does.

Ofc you can mix in various other units, but that doesn't matter as much to your success. A couple melee units to screen enemies and capture cities is sensible.

What I wonder is, what's the benefit of an early war anyway?

^^ If you get a cap, it is well worth it. I am terrible at early war though. Usually, I work so hard to get range+logistics on my archers, just in time to have them become useless for taking cities. Experienced UU are fun all game.

noto2 said:

What I wonder is, what's the benefit of an early war anyway?

Click to expand...

Well, in my current game I am in a sitation where I am stuck between 2 different civs, one west of me and the other east of me. The north is just mostly useless tundra, and the ocean is to the south so peaceful expansion isn't possible in any direction right now. There is huge amounts of free landmass behind the civ that is located west of me and they only have a couple of cities. Because of this I concluded that invading the western civ and destroying it is the only way my empire can continue to expand and stay competitive against the other civs.

This is actually one of the things that I like about games like Civ 5. There isn't just any one single reason to go to war like in most strategy games. Logical reasons can just happen on their own naturally, just like in real life. I never really WANTED to go to war with India (the western civ), but circumstances have pretty much tied my hands if I don't want to be suffocated by the other civs at some point.

EDIT: I also just discovered another benefit to early warmongering, you get less warmongering penalty. http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Warmongering_(Civ5)

A patch released on 27 October 2014 makes gains in Warmonger Amount dependent on the era of play. You will gain 50% of the normal number of warmonger points during the Ancient Era, 60% during the Classical Era, 70% during the Medieval Era, 80% during the Renaissance Era, 90% during the Industrial Era, and the full Warmonger Amount thereafter.

There actually looks like a very recent change. Less than 3 weeks old. I had no idea about this at all.

3 Catapults/ preferably Trebuchets, 3-4 composite/crossbowmen and then 3-4 melee units to protect those ranged units from direct attack. The more bowmen the better results. If you have barracs (you should have them in at least couple of cities) improve your units according the terrain you are going to attack or defend.

Pre-Gunbowder thing is you need to bombard the enemy city for couple of turns if it is on hill. It is not supposed to be very effective so you need numbers. Use Catapults/Trebuchets to bombard the city. Use bowmen to attack enemy units and if there is no enemy units to bombard, then use them to bombard the city. Use melee units only for the last attack on weakened enemy units or to take the city. And keep on producing more units so you can withdraw and replace your weakened units before they get killed.

noto2 said:

What I wonder is, what's the benefit of an early war anyway?

Click to expand...

To knock off a civ so he won't give you problems later on. Played a game as Assyria last night, and Alex was right next to me. I hate Alexander!

So I attacked with seige towers, crossbowmen, and a few pikes. Took two of his cities (including his capital), left him with tiny city with no expansion possibilities.

Why didn't you kill Alex off? It is early enough that you prolly have not met every civ, and with the patched warmonger reduction, those that have met Alex will not hate you too long.

Otherwise, Alex is going to denounce you all game long, plus steal a couple CS. That, and I think he has a high chattiness flavor, so annoying screens pop-up regularly.

That, and I think he has a high chattiness flavor, so annoying screens pop-up regularly.

Click to expand...

It's always the chattiness that makes me want to smash the screen. but i think killing off a civ would make the civs you met hate you even more, and maybe you don't want to do it after taking an extreme warmonger penalty for the capital

The archery line of units is simply overpowered. Ranged attacking in general is overpowered and with the defense & mobility of the archery line early war means almost always spamming them, even if there is a a melee UU (except for a few exceptions).

Archery units also upgrade great and remain powerful for the rest of the game. When they upgrade to machine guns it's necessary to incorporate some siege units into the mix, but they're still useful.

Johnpecan said:

The archery line of units is simply overpowered. Ranged attacking in general is overpowered and with the defense & mobility of the archery line early war means almost always spamming them, even if there is a a melee UU (except for a few exceptions).

Archery units also upgrade great and remain powerful for the rest of the game. When they upgrade to machine guns it's necessary to incorporate some siege units into the mix, but they're still useful.

Click to expand...

A couple of knights can kill archer units very easily.

beetle said:

Why didn't you kill Alex off? It is early enough that you prolly have not met every civ, and with the patched warmonger reduction, those that have met Alex will not hate you too long.

Otherwise, Alex is going to denounce you all game long, plus steal a couple CS. That, and I think he has a high chattiness flavor, so annoying screens pop-up regularly.

Click to expand...

I'm on a Mac and have the Apple store version. The patch has not been released for that yet.

It was a pangea map. I had met everyone, including the Aztecs and Siam who are on the other side of Alex's tiny city. I decided to leave him as a buffer. It was surprising how quickly I met everyone. I think I met three our four civs within the first 10 turns.

hardcore_gamer said:

A couple of knights can kill archer units very easily.

Click to expand...

Yes, but not when they're in the hands of the AI.

Range 3 archers and no warmongering penalty for civs you haven't met yet? Early war is one of the best times to do it.

Early war is still totally possible, its just that often the goals of it are different. I will consider declaring war in all of the following situations:
- I got Archery early (from a hut for example), and am close to a neighbor who is about to start sending Settlers
- I am scouting, make it to a faraway land early, and I spot a trade caravan (which is worth 100 gold if captured). Since the rival cant get to me there is no reason not to wage a short war.
- India is nearby. An easy early target who is way too unpredictable in the late game to be left alive
- Someone forward settles a city
- The rival civ is likely to build a wonder I want and I want to force it to spend more time building units
- I was able to convince the target to invade someone else first by promising them the world, then flip on the deal by declaring war (cancelling whatever I gave them but leaving them at war with the rival).

isau said:

- I was able to convince the target to invade someone else first by promising them the world, then flip on the deal by declaring war (cancelling whatever I gave them but leaving them at war with the rival).

Click to expand...

Uhm, doesn't this mess up your diplo relations with other civs for cheating? Because if it doesn't this sounds like an AI exploit.

hardcore_gamer said:

Uhm, doesn't this mess up your diplo relations with other civs for cheating? Because if it doesn't this sounds like an AI exploit.

Click to expand...

It is kind of an exploit, but it is not cheating, and does not hurt relations -- unless you had a DoF.

beetle said:

It is kind of an exploit, but it is not cheating, and does not hurt relations -- unless you had a DoF.

Click to expand...

It sounds like a very cheap strategy. I think there should be a diplo penalty with other civs as well as the one you betrayed if you dow someone whom you are already trading with.

It is a cheap strategy, but no betrayal per se. Just breaking a deal because of DoW. Human players would be miffed, but prolly would not fall for it. It was much worse w/ GnK because no DoF was need for lump sum deals. It is no worse than worker stealing. I am not above it, but it is not something I do in the majority of my games.